Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 08 July 2014 14:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0911A0028; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2SUaNo32cQeF; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425831B2AE4; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s68EBsF4052281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:11:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002E8BF@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:11:53 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 426521513.892997-977af1272311dc9f31d7febd2312f12c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F4EC51A9-BDA0-46B7-81CB-47189EE1AD7F@nostrum.com>
References: <C8F7216E-A827-462C-917F-6B766682CA59@nostrum.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002BA2A@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <C7A509EE-C5E4-4C0D-8430-3B9C12D02F71@nostrum.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002CD2A@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <74CA362E-3960-415A-B99A-40251917686A@nostrum.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002E8BF@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Kt0LGFdkGwuEeX9QRoA87lAVvzU
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:12:07 -0000
Version 7 addresses all of my concerns, and is IMO ready for publication. Thanks! Ben. On Jul 8, 2014, at 1:14 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > A pre-5378 boilerplate is now present in -07. Please check this diff: > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-07.txt > > Thank you for your careful review. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] >> Envoyé : lundi 7 juillet 2014 23:29 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN >> Cc : draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update.all@tools.ietf.org; gen- >> art@ietf.org Team (gen-art@ietf.org); ietf@ietf.org list >> Objet : Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr- >> arch-update-05 >> >> Hi, >> >> Please see inline (I deleted parts that don't appear to need further >> comment) >> >> On Jul 4, 2014, at 8:44 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >> [...] >>>> >>>>>> -- idNits complains about the lack of a pre-5378 disclaimer >> boilerplate. >>>> I >>>>>> found a discussion in the 6man archives ( http://www.ietf.org/mail- >>>>>> archive/web/ipv6/current/msg20838.html ) indicating the authors >>>> preferred >>>>>> not to contact all possible authors of pre-5378 text. Doesn't that >> mean >>>> the >>>>>> draft should carry the boilerplate? >>>>> >>>>> [Med] We prefer to leave this point for the RFC Editor. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you mean that you prefer to leave the _decision_ to the RFC Editor, >> or >>>> that you recognize the pre-5378 boilerplate is needed, but would like >> the >>>> RFC editor to insert it? >>> >>> [Med] We don't think a disclaimer is needed because we quote old text + >> the new one is largely the same. If the RFC editor re-raises the point, we >> will clarify our position and then discuss. This is what I meant by " leave >> this point for the RFC Editor." >> >> I think I'm with you for the "old" text, since that is made up of quoted >> text and attributed to the RFCs. But I'm a bit confused by the argument >> that the "new" text is largely the same as the old. That seems to support >> the idea that this draft derives text from those RFCs, which is exactly the >> situation the pre-5378 boilerplate is intended to address. >> >> In any case, I don't think the RFC editor can be expected to resolve the >> question, and the fact that the RFC editor might not bring up the issue >> doesn't mean there is no issue. At this point that responsibility seems to >> lie with the authors and the ADs. >> >>> >>>> >>>> If the former, The RFC editor will not have the background about the >> pre- >>>> 5378 text needed to make that call. That's the responsibility of the >>>> authors. If there's text from pre-5378 IETF documents included, and the >>>> current authors have not verified that all authors of the original text >>>> agree to the BCP 78 and 79 terms, then the pre-5378 boilerplate needs to >> go >>>> in. This is important; getting it wrong involves misrepresentation of >> the >>>> license terms. >>>> >>>> If the latter, then the draft needs some directive to the RFC editor to >> add >>>> the boilerplate. (But keep in mind that the pre-5378 boilerplate >>>> requirement applies to all contributions. That is, I-Ds as well as RFCs >> -- >>>> so it's important to get this right in the _draft_, not just the final >>>> RFC.) >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >
- Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-ad… Ben Campbell
- RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicas… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… Ben Campbell
- RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… mohamed.boucadair
- RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… Ben Campbell
- RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6ma… Jari Arkko